Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructive/open-world/non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the change is gated by human approval in Royally, nothing on the site changes until then, and there is no undo even after it executes. That approval-gate and irreversibility detail is exactly what an agent needs before firing a destructive write.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded, sentences are short and each carries a distinct fact (partial merge, permission, approval gate, no undo, sibling pointer). One sentence about asking for a URL is noise given the schema only accepts an ID.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers prerequisites, approval semantics, irreversibility, partial-update behavior, and the read-only alternative — enough to call it correctly despite a free-form nested settings object. It does not indicate what the call returns, which matters slightly since there is no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for the loosely-typed 'settings' object by noting it is a partial merge and giving example keys (page layout, title visibility, custom page settings). The URL-for-post_id suggestion is mildly inconsistent with the integer-only schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource (updates Elementor document-level settings for a post) and gives concrete examples of what those settings cover. It distinguishes the read path via 'Use get-page-structure when you also need the element tree', though it does not differentiate itself from other Elementor mutation siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear usage rule ('Pass only the keys you want to change'), a prerequisite ('Requires permission to edit the target post'), and names an alternative tool for the element-tree case. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., use manage-elements instead for element-level edits), and 'ask the user for the URL or post ID' is slightly off since the tool accepts only an integer post_id.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.